Friday, May 29, 2015

They make it appear out of an infinitely dense soup of primordial matter, which expands into a bridge shape. Nobody has seen this happen though unfortunately. We are suppose to believe it because during the day the bridge expands, meaning if we reverse calculate the expansion rate, we can figure out how old the bridge is, and prove that it started out as an infinitely dense soup of primordial matter.

Does this reasoning sound familiar? It should. It is the exact same argument of Big Bang Creationism.

Modern cosmologists think they are studying "big ticket" items, but they aren't. Their heads are in la-la land. String theory, multiverses, big bang creationism, accelerated expansion of the universe (expanding into what, out of what mind you?), etc.

If they were pragmatic, they would understand that the Earth is a "big ticket" item. They ignore the very ground they walk on. This is why I do not get along with them. They are not of the Earth, they are airy, ephemeral loons who's pop sci propaganda will be forgotten as soon as its thought up. They are not the torch bearers of human understanding.

They think the greatest understanding is in the sky, but it is not. The greatest understanding is right below their feet. After all, the Earth is in the sky to someone in another star system.

The consciousness itself they experience is frowned upon, as if the "answer" can be found in math formulas. It is a complete detachment from reality they suffer from, a socially acceptable form of insanity...if only they had the correct math formula...

So, to determine how much heat was released when these compounds formed, given we can assume specific rates of reaction, we must find their enthalpies of formation. This will tell us how hot the Earth really was when these reactions were taking place, and can set a lower limit on how much atmosphere was needed to shield the reactions from outside influences. It is predicted that the Earth was a much larger gas giant, and even a fully ionized star at one point, this is just one step to the process of reverse engineering. Here are iron/calcium/magnesium pyroxenes and their chemical makeups:

If the commenter does not provide any reasonable solution to the issues that I have raised or does not contribute with the idea of helping, then I will from now on delete the comment. I do not have time for silly internet games. I think the rule for such games is zero tolerance, I have wasted enough time dealing with them.

It is common knowledge that mainstream cosmology and astrophysics thinks stars are fusion reactors, thus their ideas and understanding of the stars is a dead end.What needs to happen is we need to apply reaction rates to the chemicals by reverse engineering the Earth, and even the high atmospheres of exoplanets (evolving stars).The nature of the reaction: Some reactions are naturally faster than others. The number of reacting species, their physical state (the particles that form solids move much more slowly than those of gases or those in solution), the complexity of the reaction and other factors can greatly influence the rate of a reaction. (To include plasmatic matter during earlier stages of stellar evolution and stellar birthing which is subject to electromagnetic forcing, thus would majorly influence the nature of the reaction.)Concentration: Reaction rate increases with concentration, as described by the rate law and explained by collision theory. As reactant concentration increases, the frequency of collision increases.(Concentrations do also change as the star begins differentiation, so nailing which chemicals are denser than others as they synthesize in the interiors of the star is also important.)Pressure: The rate of gaseous reactions increases with pressure, which is, in fact, equivalent to an increase in concentration of the gas. The reaction rate increases in the direction where there are fewer moles of gas and decreases in the reverse direction. For condensed-phase reactions, the pressure dependence is weak.(Condensed phase reactions take place in higher altitudes early during stellar evolution, and move towards the interior as the material cools and begins pressurization, as well as early core development. This would impact the rate of reactions on a large scale, and has a lot to do with why some gas giants are puffier than others, meaning we can determine if they were recently orbiting other hotter younger stars, more on that later.)Order: The order of the reaction controls how the reactant concentration (or pressure) affects reaction rate.(Order of the reaction is a big deal, especially when the plasmatic matter is still in its recombining modes (becoming gaseous)), because they are electromagnetically forced and gravitation basically a non-existent force when measured against electromagnetism at small distances.)Temperature: Usually conducting a reaction at a higher temperature delivers more energy into the system and increases the reaction rate by causing more collisions between particles, as explained by collision theory. However, the main reason that temperature increases the rate of reaction is that more of the colliding particles will have the necessary activation energy resulting in more successful collisions (when bonds are formed between reactants). The influence of temperature is described by the Arrhenius equation. As a rule of thumb, reaction rates for many reactions double for every 10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature, though the effect of temperature may be very much larger or smaller than this.(Young stars hot on their surfaces and internalize their heat as they evolve, while simultaneously pressurizing their interiors and undergoing phase transitioning, this has calculus written all over it.)

The Sun adopted the smaller objects as it moved though the galaxy, with their pre-existing satellites. That was easy. Why would I ask a question that is easy to answer? Well, because that is not the question people are REALLY asking when they ask the question, "how did the solar system form?"

What they are really wondering is how the objects IN the solar system formed. Well, they are all stages to a single star's evolution. Some are more evolved than others. Some are even broken up parts to ancient stars which give the appearance of being worlds themselves, such as asteroids and small moons.

They all have timelines mutually exclusive of each other. The fact that they are in their current arrangement is random. To drive the point home, there are two main philosophies here which people are unaware of.

1. The solar system is a single object.

2. The solar system is a bunch of objects all mixed together randomly. (systems inside of systems)

Which do you think is the sound philosophy?

What really happens is that all this boils down to basic communication problems. When a scientist says, "solar system" they think "one", or "singular", thus any explanation of the singular system will need a singular process.

If they think multiple objects, then they will lean more towards explaining what the objects are doing, absent any notion of them being parts to a larger process. They are not parts to a larger process, the orbits are not processes which formed them, and that is the only thing that relates them. Take the orbits away, and what do you have? Singular stars in distinct stages of evolution.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

It is a simple diagram, but explains so much better than a silly math formula. All it does is point to which direction the spontaneous reaction will happen, given the products and reactants are not in equilibrium (not releasing or gaining heat).

Rocks and minerals in establishment astronomy form in vacuum. This is a fact. What they never tell people is how exactly do the rocks and minerals form to begin with, before they clump together?
The protoplanetary disk
requires that rocks/minerals form in vacuum. Not only that but they ignore the
chemical reactions required to form the compounds minerals/rocks are comprised
of. To them, elements just clump together because of gravity forming rocks. Rocks and minerals are comprised of chemical compounds! Where was the activation energy provided to combine the elements together for mineral formation in the vacuum of outer space!? As well, how the hell do they explain crystal growth in vacuum absent a gravitational body to provide direction for deposition? People need to understand this fact:Vacuum does not possess pressure, that's why they call it vacuum.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation

So literally, we have chemistry being ignored (albeit haphazardly), to account for the fact that the majority of chemistry equations start with 1 atm of pressure regarding enthalpies of formation (forming chemical compounds such as minerals).Where is the chemistry of vacuum to account for mineral growth to begin with? It is ignored ladies and gentlemen. Just so we are clear how the chain of events happens and how establishment ignores it I can break it down very easily:1. First you combine elements to make molecules.2. Then you take those molecules and layer them to form minerals.3. Then you take those minerals and mix them up to form rocks.4. Then you clump the small rocks together until they make really big objects.5. Then the objects differentiate based on their ''weight".

That is how establishment does planet building, I'm not kidding. So, it should be brought to the attention of the reader:

1. How do elements combine to make molecules in the vacuum of outer space absent pressure and activation energy?

2. How do those compounds layer themselves absent any coherent direction (remember there is no gravitation while the pebbles are forming). 3. How did the minerals mix up to form rocks absent any mechanism in outer space to do with mixing?

4. How do you clump together the small rocks absent a gravitational field, and given it is a known fact that they will bounce off each other and not coalesce?

5. How do these larger rocks differentiate based on their weight absent a heat source and ignoring the fact that they have already become crystalline structure in the first steps?It sounds like establishment astrophysics is a mix of wishful thinking, miracles and ignorance of simple chemical and geological understanding. I can answer the questions, but establishment noobs won't like the answers.1. A star combines elements to make molecules as the majority of its material is fully ionized. Recombining the ionized material will form molecules. The star provides the pressure and activation energy in the form of gravitational collapse, electrical arcing, and magnetic pinching.2. The star provides the coherent direction, down, into its interior.3. The star does the mixing via the rock cycle (bad news for geologists, they have been ignoring earlier stages of a star's evolution).4. The star will clump together the rocks, there is no escape! Gravity holds everything in place, unless the rocks ionize fully again then get expelled via a CME or solar wind.5. The differentiation isn't done via weight alone, the properties/ionization energies of the material determine it's placement during the process of differentiation (sorry, the iron catastrophe is hocus pocus).

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

This transcript is virtually unknown to big bang believers. I think astronomy went in another direction back in the 1950's, but people wouldn't know this if they did not pay attention or dig into history.

It is worth a read, as well it is not something you will ever see in any propagandized science industry where only the Big Bang Creationists get the time and money.

Here is my favorite part of the interview:

Arp:

Yeah, I was just in Jodrell Bank giving a talk there and Sir Bernard Lovell was there. He was at that Solvay Conference 1957, he reminded me of that situation which I already knew. The situation again, the Solvay Conference is a very top level conference, where in the past they have had Einstein, Planck, Bohr and all these people down through the years. So they’d run it in astronomy down through the years also. They’d invited the top people at the Solvay Conference, also there were Oort, and Lovell and Hoyle, all the top astronomers. And they decided for some reason that they had to get a representative from the Soviet Union and they figured well, they heard about this Ambartsumian. They invited him from the Soviet Union and he came, nobody knew him. He came and gave this paper which nobody understood. What they thought was complete trash and they thought it was so crazy. Bernard Lovell was telling me that they were embarrassed because it was so bad. They didn’t want to be rude to this representative of the Soviet Union, so they didn’t say much but they were really embarrassed by the paper.

But then they went on about the important business and this paper was published in the proceedings. That was in 1957. Well, about eight, nine, ten years later it began to appear that the things Ambartsumian had said in his paper, that far from being crazy, were, in fact, quite true and as time goes on his paper got more and more prophetic, more and more far reaching and insightful. When I was with him at the Brighton IAU, the IAU before Australia, six years ago, and I was sitting next to Oort, and Oort said to me, “it turned out that Ambartsumian was right.” And so it was generally concluded, I still don’t think they realized how right he was. I mean, I still, I’m sure, my opinion, contemporary astronomers really have not grasped the extent to which he is right.

Wright: What was the essence of this paper? Arp:

Well, he just looked at galaxies on the Palomar Sky Survey. He said, well, galaxies eject other galaxies, free galactic material and they form other galaxies. And you see that the implication of that was to rock the whole foundation of our ideas of where galaxies come from. The whole idea is just the Big Bang, diffuse medium, galaxies condensed, clouds form, that’s how galaxies are formed. Ambartsumian was saying something completely different. He was saying that the material comes from inside of galaxies, goes out and forms other galaxies. And if you carry forward the implications, if you believe that, then you begin asking yourself questions like, was the Big Bang really like this generally assumed or maybe started out with one body which had successive fragmentation, or maybe the universe is turning itself inside out from inside. You see this way raises really unsettling questions which contemporary astronomers are not prepared or willing to face at all, despite what I think is the beginning of an enormous amount of evidence piling up in this direction. That’s where it is nowadays.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Well of course they are constructed differently. They are all stars in different stages of their evolution, we should find isotope abundances to be quite different. They all came from somewhere else in the galaxy. This means the nebular disk theory and all its variants are false. To separate the two I can list the main differences here:

1. Solar disk, nebular hypothesis, accretion model has the solar system objects all roughly the same age with the same isotope abundances. They are related to each other as they all came from the same cloud of dust (these are the facts).

2. Stellar metamorphosis has the solar system as an adopted family, with all the objects likely originating from somewhere else in the galaxy. They are not related to each other. Earth, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, etc all predate the Sun, and some predate each other!

The core accretion model in astrophysics is the idea that the cores of planets are formed first, and then the outer material is accreted onto the developed core. So they build the core first, then layer the material onto the core. It sounds reasonable, but only three problems:

1. They build the core without a gravitational field!

2. They build the core absent heat!

3. They build the core absent the ability to differentiate the material!

The solution to their problems are easily solved. The gravitational field required to form a large core only exists where there is a gravitating object large enough to clump the material together, heat and ionize it so that it can differentiate into pure iron/nickel. That means the beginning development of a "core" happens inside of stars themselves.

For my readers the difference is as follows between establishment core accretion model and stellar metamorphosis:

The reason why they ignore this finding is because of pressure from peers. The nuclear people who teach "fusion model" of the stars already have young stars like the Sun as possessing cores! So they are caught between a rock and a hard place. One on hand you can theorize core accretion happens where it doesn't, on the other you can theorize something that goes against your peers!

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

"How did a disc of gas and dust become the heavenly bodies we find in the Solar System: planets, moons, and asteroids? Four astronomers have now brought science one step closer to answering this enigma."

They will never get close to solving the riddle by assuming the same philosophy. Let us give the public an understanding of the two main philosophies here, the one that causes enigma, the other answers the riddle.

1. A planet is a by-product of star formation.

2. A planet is the by-product of star evolution.

One assumes that planets/stars are mutually exclusive as outlined in the article above. The second one assumes that the star is the new planet. Thus, the concept of "planetary evolution" is introduced. The bright objects in the night sky with spectrums are young/hot planets, or as people call them "stars".

To answer the riddle though, a vast array of false knowledge needs to be trashed. This is my greatest strength, I was never conditioned into the big bang, dark matter, nebular hypothesis, fusion star crowd.

Well that basically sums up the article. They believe life is formed outside of stars. Negative. Life forms inside the star as it cools and dies, eventually becoming a life hosting star called by astronomers, "planet". Life is a by-product of stellar evolution itself. They would know this if they kept up to date with current evolutionary models of stars, but nope. They prefer keeping safe in their Ivory Towers.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Well, do all stars have spectrums? No. The vast majority of stars in an evolved galaxy like our own do not have spectrums. They stopped shining from their own light billions of years ago. Not only that, but astronomers call them "planets/exoplanets", which just exacerbates the problem.

Gases, liquids and solids do not undergo recombination, they are already at lower enthalpies. This means the older/dead stars do not have spectrums.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

"occurs through the tidal friction processes: orbital and rotational energy are dissipated as heat in either the surface ocean or interior of a planet or satellite"
If this were true Mercury would have more volcanoes and geological activity than Earth, yet guess which object is hotter and has active volcanic activity? Earth. The tidal heating hypothesis is ad hoc to try and explain away Io's activity.

Think about this people. Earth has ENORMOUS amounts volcanic activity, yet is vastly further from the Sun than Mercury, but Mercury has NO VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.

Someone needs to tell these scientists that the tidal heating stuff has got to go. It is clearly false.

Io is hot because it is dissipating the energy from a past collision event. The crust is still re-adjusting and re-rounding itself via gravity from when it was shredded from a larger object, clearly many millions of years in the past before Jupiter adopted it.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

"Plate tectonics – the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences – faces some very severe and apparently fatal problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had to be patched up with a complex variety of ad-hoc modifications and auxiliary hypotheses. The existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a continuous, global asthenosphere to "lubricate" plate motions, have rendered the classical model of plate movements untenable. There is no consensus on the thickness of the "plates" and no certainty as to the forces responsible for their supposed movement. The hypotheses of large-scale continental movements, seafloor spreading and subduction, and the relative youth of the oceanic crust are contradicted by a substantial volume of data. Evidence for significant amounts of submerged continental crust in the present-day oceans provides another major challenge to plate tectonics. The fundamental principles of plate tectonics therefore require critical reexamination, revision, or rejection."http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm

I have serious beef with plate tectonics as well for the exact same reasons. The features of the Earth can be explained better if the philosopher includes earlier stages of evolution, this is the whole purpose of stellar metamorphosis.

Many geology textbooks contain colourful pictures of uniformly thin (~150 km) plates moving over a continuous, global asthenosphere. Such pictures are far removed from reality. After reviewing evidence for 400-km-thick roots beneath stable cratons, Lerner-Lam (1988) concluded: "Evidently, the earth has flunked the seismological test of the thin-plate theory" (p. 51-53). He might equally well have said that plate tectonics has flunked the seismological test.http://www.davidpratt.info/lowman.htm

Roots. The plate has deep roots, this means they don't move. Like trees, your teeth and people who don't like to skip town, roots kind of stand in the way of motion. Also it means that in 1988 plate tectonics kicked the bucket (died) and morphed into a zombie theory, as it is STILL to this day taught as being "correct". Twenty-seven years has passed, it died when I was a 3 year old trying to figure out how to draw on the walls of the condo with crayons without my brother finding out.

This is a phase diagram with temperature/pressure alone to determine which mineral the Al2SiO5 will solidify into given the right temp/pressure.

During very late stages of star evolution, the aluminum, silicon and oxygen form bonds with each other in large quantities forming these three types of minerals. Nailing down which elements bonded with which first is the key, because then we can determine where in the atmosphere they probably formed before becoming their solid form.

As well, regardless of how "cranky" it may sound to modern geologists, this phase diagram literally means that if we find these minerals on the surface of the Earth (where you can pick them up with your hands), it means that at one point that area was around ~800 degrees C.

It also means that the atmosphere was much thicker because 1 GPa is ~9,800 atmospheres, and that's right on the surface ladies and gents. This is direct evidence for Earth's atmosphere having been vastly thicker, or the interior of a gas giant star.

Friday, May 1, 2015

Who knows. All I know is that I just remembered to overview an incompleteness regarding Bowen's Reaction Series/Goldich Dissolution Series:

The Goldich dissolution series is a way of predicting the relative stability or weathering rate of various minerals on the Earth's surface.
When this was invented, they did not know the surface was much different during gas giant phases of the Earth's evolution. It was under much higher pressure, the chemicals were different, and the very act of weathering was much, much more reliant on hydraulics rather than low pressure/oxidative properties of rain water coupled with mild acid.